JW Insider

I know them about as well as you know them. Doesn't mean I agree with their conclusions. If someone is serious about their research, I'll take it seriously, too. I called the WTS with questions on several occasions when working through the claims being made by outsiders about the JW era in Hitler's Germany, and both Brother H.Peloyan and Brother J.Pellechia said they didn't know the answers, exactly, but pointed me to a book by M.James Penton, with a reminder that although he answers the questions I had, that this doesn't mean we need to subscribe to all of his conclusions. I agree with them, and appreciated their honesty. I bought Penton's book about Jehovah's Witnesses in the Third Reich specifically on the recommendation of Brother Pellechia.
I think you are at least 100 times more "devoted" to everything I say than Anna.
I agree with the Watchtower which also has said many times that we should challenge the Watchtower teachings to see if they speak the truth. If you disagree, then you are simply disagreeing with the Watchtower. That should not be a problem to anyone, if you have good Biblical reasons, but in this case the Watchtower agrees with the Bible.
If that were true, you should have been able to show me at least one case where I did that. So far, you've shown no evidence of any misrepresentation.
Remember, however, that this is about what the Watchtower publications have had to say. I have noticed, for example, that the Watchtower, for a time, confused the end of the Gentile Times with October 1914, then posited dates as late as October 1915, then August 1914, then back to October 1914, and then in the 1920's the Watchtower began presenting material that claimed Russell had made an announcement at Bethel on October 1st, then October 4th, then October 2nd. However, I had never noticed one of the Watchtower quotations that was pictured (in context) in the material that @Noble Berean presented. Where I can learn something, I'm always happy to learn.
That's because I recognized instantly that you were flat out wrong about @Matthew9969 being the same as @Noble Berean. There was absolutely no evidence for it and a lot of evidence against it. However, I think I know exactly why you made the mistake in thinking so yourself. If you're interested, I can help you understand.
I insinuated exactly the opposite. That this cultish behavior was already generally cleaned up way back in Rutherford's time, with lingering influences from some who never seemed to completely cleanse themselves from the ideologies of that period.
All you have to do is point out one of these falsehoods or dishonesties and I will immediately change my mind about it and apologize. As I said, you've had four years of opportunities. I'm sure I've made several mistakes in that time period.
(Proverbs 10:19) 19 In the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression,. . .  

Truth means "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Not whitewashed, partial truth, and not just the "spin" that tickles our ears.
That's everyone's own business whether they would rather know the whole truth, or ignore the truth, or assume that others can and should prioritize for them what they need to know as "the truth."
But, for me, I think we would be hypocrites to sing songs like we just did this last week. (Make the Truth Your Own), the comments on Colossians 2:8, etc., etc. Most of our meetings contain small reminders that we need to "love" truth. It shouldn't matter where it takes us. Actually, it should matter. And it should matter, even more, that some people don't want us to go where it takes us. 
It's difficult for most of us to admit that the "Watchtower religion" has been a cult in the past. (In the more pejorative sense of the word.) The Watchtower publicly admits that this is true, claiming that many of the Bible Students were cult worshipers of Charles Taze Russell. We know that Rutherford said he determined to rid the Watchtower of the personality cult that worshiped Russell. He called this "creature worship" because they were worshiping a man. But we also know that, for many years, Rutherford himself was part of the same cult, and even bragged in 1916 that Russell's enemies would soon have to come and "worship at his feet."
But, in general, I think Rutherford finally did a pretty good job replacing the cult members with persons who were looking for practical Bible truth, and not just for a man to do their thinking for them. But many persons, even Watchtower writers, have confused God and the earthly organization. And, this idea might surprise many, but I think that F.W.Franz gave evidence that he remained as a "cult" member until he died. He loved being seen as the the primary Rabbi --The ORACLE, they called him-- and it went to his head as he tried for his entire career to revive interest in dates, chronology, numerology, Jubilees, new truths (prophetic interpretations), parallel dispensations, the pre-eminence of the truly anointed, etc. I think his influence created cult members out of several ordinary Witnesses. I believe that my great-grandfather (from even before F.Franz was at Bethel) was a "cult" member in the organization until the 1960's when he died, even though my other relatives were (and are) regular JWs, and not cult members. I'm pretty sure that C.Woodworth was a cult member until the 1950's when he died. I know that when they searched out documentation and photos for the Proclaimer's book, they were astounded at the "cult" material still available in Witnesses' archives, including F.Franz himself.
And many Witnesses, today, are tempted to look at 8 men exactly the way that Bible Students looked at Russell. The way we defend or dismiss the material from our past history can be an indicator as to whether we too have succumbed to cult thinking. Even the way we defend current material that came out of long-standing traditions of the past can also be an indicator. I can talk to Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists for hours and recognize almost immediately which ones are in a "cult" and which ones aren't by the manner in which they defend Ellen G White or Joseph Smith when glaring problems are pointed out.
(Job 31:26-28) 26 If I saw the sun shining Or the moon moving in its splendor; 27 And my heart was secretly enticed, And my mouth kissed my hand in worship of them; 28 Then that would be an error deserving punishment by the judges, For I would have denied the true God above.

I appear to be behind the times here.
Mike & Kim I know of from a video I watched of them on YouTube, where they seemed a bit too silly and flippant (perhaps even tipsy?). But their information was lousy, and they were promoting this idea that elders were destroying necessary CSA evidence, when they were really misinterpreting "good practice" counsel from the WTS about record-keeping.  Maybe they have done their homework on other videos, but I won't waste my time because I don't trust them based on the random one I watched. P. Asare I have never heard of. John Redwood is related to John Cedars, who is somehow related to Lloyd Evans, as I saw these names on JW Survey. I downloaded that site to read later, but I did read all the headlines from the site, just never got back to it. Average Joe I have never heard of. Bill Bowen is the former elder who put his face behind "Silent Lambs" which intended to expose CSA crimes among JWs. I understand that Barbara Anderson worked with him to get it started and get it named but that Barbara Anderson didn't trust his motives or his personality and backed away from it. (I have read much of Anderson's site, and the name comes up often when I search Google on several different historical and CSA topics.) WiFiBandit sounds very familiar but I do not know from where. (I suspect this is a Jehovahs-Witness forum participant. I don't care much about the work of most ex-JWs for purposes of testing their claims, or defense against their claims, unless I'm convinced that they have done their homework, and are not prone to taking things out of context. For this reason, I have purchased 2 books from M.J.Penton, 1 from C.O.Jonnson, and 2 from E.C.Gruss. (I also have two books from R.Franz that I picked up online as free pdfs. I also picked up a book called Apostles of Denial from archive.org, which is also from E.C.Gruss.)
Otherwise, I pretty much ignore current online sources because I think they tend to get their info from other sources anyway, and misinterpret or misrepresent what they said. For this reason I won't bother with those who don't do their own work, when it comes to claims we should test for ourselves.
Compared to people who appear to have gone to original sources and documented their work, I'd guess that most of these online personalities are probably just repeating things. Any of them, including the authors I mentioned, might also have had bad motives. We should expect that this taints their own conclusions. But it's worth looking at their work, especially if a lot of it is true, regardless of their own motives or conclusions. Perhaps we'll look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

In many halls the very library itself can no longer be found. So there are no older books, just a shelf for current (but used) Bibles and Songbooks that folks left accidentally. But it's true that the out of print books are not banned. Just harder to find, such as Aid to Bible Understanding and Commentary on the Letter of James. But if it were not well known which writer wrote a specific book, and it usually isn't, then there was no need to remove those books. The need to replace the Aid book with Insight began in a hurry after R.Franz became known as the head writer, through his own admission in Crisis of Conscience, but most the entries are still exactly verbatim what was in the Aid book. But they still haven't replaced "Choosing the Best Way of Life" and it's still available on the Watchtower Library CD, and wol.jw.org.
There are books that make us cringe, and those who ask specific questions about anything prior to 1970 will probably be looked at as if they are losing faith in the organization. Don't try to ask if anyone knows of anything still good in the Finished Mystery book, for example.
There is still a lot of good information in some of the books and magazines prior to 1970, but most anything useful has been repeated, or updated/corrected in more recent books and magazines. Also, I have some memos I was going to share here once that showed that in assigning topics, the head of Writing had a kind of rule that every topic would be revisited before 20 years were up. So if a topic hadn't been touched in a while, you might at least see it updated, for example, in 1939, 1958, 1977 (and 1996, 2015 if they still kept the "policy" going).
A couple of big changes that make a lot of books up to even 2000 obsolete is the fact that we no longer make a prophecy out of parables and narrative portions of the Bible. This doesn't make the good counsel obsolete, but usually it means that this counsel now applies to everybody, not just a specific class. (i.e., Shulammite class, Haman class, Esther class, Elijah class, Elisha class, Ruth class, Naomi class, Jehu class, Jezebel class, Jeremiah class, Jonadab class, Samaritan class, Prodigal Son's Brother's class, etc.)

Really? Everything possible must be tried in order to make a cult out of the U.S.Marines in as short a time as possible. It includes the idea that they can claim authority from Almighty God, Jehovah. And notice the "Ezekiel" video playing, too.
 

I have a little more respect for the ones who are not participating.

Really? Everything possible must be tried in order to make a cult out of the U.S.Marines in as short a time as possible. It includes the idea that they can claim authority from Almighty God, Jehovah. And notice the "Ezekiel" video playing, too.
 

I have a little more respect for the ones who are not participating.

I appear to be behind the times here.
Mike & Kim I know of from a video I watched of them on YouTube, where they seemed a bit too silly and flippant (perhaps even tipsy?). But their information was lousy, and they were promoting this idea that elders were destroying necessary CSA evidence, when they were really misinterpreting "good practice" counsel from the WTS about record-keeping.  Maybe they have done their homework on other videos, but I won't waste my time because I don't trust them based on the random one I watched. P. Asare I have never heard of. John Redwood is related to John Cedars, who is somehow related to Lloyd Evans, as I saw these names on JW Survey. I downloaded that site to read later, but I did read all the headlines from the site, just never got back to it. Average Joe I have never heard of. Bill Bowen is the former elder who put his face behind "Silent Lambs" which intended to expose CSA crimes among JWs. I understand that Barbara Anderson worked with him to get it started and get it named but that Barbara Anderson didn't trust his motives or his personality and backed away from it. (I have read much of Anderson's site, and the name comes up often when I search Google on several different historical and CSA topics.) WiFiBandit sounds very familiar but I do not know from where. (I suspect this is a Jehovahs-Witness forum participant. I don't care much about the work of most ex-JWs for purposes of testing their claims, or defense against their claims, unless I'm convinced that they have done their homework, and are not prone to taking things out of context. For this reason, I have purchased 2 books from M.J.Penton, 1 from C.O.Jonnson, and 2 from E.C.Gruss. (I also have two books from R.Franz that I picked up online as free pdfs. I also picked up a book called Apostles of Denial from archive.org, which is also from E.C.Gruss.)
Otherwise, I pretty much ignore current online sources because I think they tend to get their info from other sources anyway, and misinterpret or misrepresent what they said. For this reason I won't bother with those who don't do their own work, when it comes to claims we should test for ourselves.
Compared to people who appear to have gone to original sources and documented their work, I'd guess that most of these online personalities are probably just repeating things. Any of them, including the authors I mentioned, might also have had bad motives. We should expect that this taints their own conclusions. But it's worth looking at their work, especially if a lot of it is true, regardless of their own motives or conclusions. Perhaps we'll look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

Truth means "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Not whitewashed, partial truth, and not just the "spin" that tickles our ears.
That's everyone's own business whether they would rather know the whole truth, or ignore the truth, or assume that others can and should prioritize for them what they need to know as "the truth."
But, for me, I think we would be hypocrites to sing songs like we just did this last week. (Make the Truth Your Own), the comments on Colossians 2:8, etc., etc. Most of our meetings contain small reminders that we need to "love" truth. It shouldn't matter where it takes us. Actually, it should matter. And it should matter, even more, that some people don't want us to go where it takes us. 
It's difficult for most of us to admit that the "Watchtower religion" has been a cult in the past. (In the more pejorative sense of the word.) The Watchtower publicly admits that this is true, claiming that many of the Bible Students were cult worshipers of Charles Taze Russell. We know that Rutherford said he determined to rid the Watchtower of the personality cult that worshiped Russell. He called this "creature worship" because they were worshiping a man. But we also know that, for many years, Rutherford himself was part of the same cult, and even bragged in 1916 that Russell's enemies would soon have to come and "worship at his feet."
But, in general, I think Rutherford finally did a pretty good job replacing the cult members with persons who were looking for practical Bible truth, and not just for a man to do their thinking for them. But many persons, even Watchtower writers, have confused God and the earthly organization. And, this idea might surprise many, but I think that F.W.Franz gave evidence that he remained as a "cult" member until he died. He loved being seen as the the primary Rabbi --The ORACLE, they called him-- and it went to his head as he tried for his entire career to revive interest in dates, chronology, numerology, Jubilees, new truths (prophetic interpretations), parallel dispensations, the pre-eminence of the truly anointed, etc. I think his influence created cult members out of several ordinary Witnesses. I believe that my great-grandfather (from even before F.Franz was at Bethel) was a "cult" member in the organization until the 1960's when he died, even though my other relatives were (and are) regular JWs, and not cult members. I'm pretty sure that C.Woodworth was a cult member until the 1950's when he died. I know that when they searched out documentation and photos for the Proclaimer's book, they were astounded at the "cult" material still available in Witnesses' archives, including F.Franz himself.
And many Witnesses, today, are tempted to look at 8 men exactly the way that Bible Students looked at Russell. The way we defend or dismiss the material from our past history can be an indicator as to whether we too have succumbed to cult thinking. Even the way we defend current material that came out of long-standing traditions of the past can also be an indicator. I can talk to Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists for hours and recognize almost immediately which ones are in a "cult" and which ones aren't by the manner in which they defend Ellen G White or Joseph Smith when glaring problems are pointed out.
(Job 31:26-28) 26 If I saw the sun shining Or the moon moving in its splendor; 27 And my heart was secretly enticed, And my mouth kissed my hand in worship of them; 28 Then that would be an error deserving punishment by the judges, For I would have denied the true God above.

Truth means "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Not whitewashed, partial truth, and not just the "spin" that tickles our ears.
That's everyone's own business whether they would rather know the whole truth, or ignore the truth, or assume that others can and should prioritize for them what they need to know as "the truth."
But, for me, I think we would be hypocrites to sing songs like we just did this last week. (Make the Truth Your Own), the comments on Colossians 2:8, etc., etc. Most of our meetings contain small reminders that we need to "love" truth. It shouldn't matter where it takes us. Actually, it should matter. And it should matter, even more, that some people don't want us to go where it takes us. 
It's difficult for most of us to admit that the "Watchtower religion" has been a cult in the past. (In the more pejorative sense of the word.) The Watchtower publicly admits that this is true, claiming that many of the Bible Students were cult worshipers of Charles Taze Russell. We know that Rutherford said he determined to rid the Watchtower of the personality cult that worshiped Russell. He called this "creature worship" because they were worshiping a man. But we also know that, for many years, Rutherford himself was part of the same cult, and even bragged in 1916 that Russell's enemies would soon have to come and "worship at his feet."
But, in general, I think Rutherford finally did a pretty good job replacing the cult members with persons who were looking for practical Bible truth, and not just for a man to do their thinking for them. But many persons, even Watchtower writers, have confused God and the earthly organization. And, this idea might surprise many, but I think that F.W.Franz gave evidence that he remained as a "cult" member until he died. He loved being seen as the the primary Rabbi --The ORACLE, they called him-- and it went to his head as he tried for his entire career to revive interest in dates, chronology, numerology, Jubilees, new truths (prophetic interpretations), parallel dispensations, the pre-eminence of the truly anointed, etc. I think his influence created cult members out of several ordinary Witnesses. I believe that my great-grandfather (from even before F.Franz was at Bethel) was a "cult" member in the organization until the 1960's when he died, even though my other relatives were (and are) regular JWs, and not cult members. I'm pretty sure that C.Woodworth was a cult member until the 1950's when he died. I know that when they searched out documentation and photos for the Proclaimer's book, they were astounded at the "cult" material still available in Witnesses' archives, including F.Franz himself.
And many Witnesses, today, are tempted to look at 8 men exactly the way that Bible Students looked at Russell. The way we defend or dismiss the material from our past history can be an indicator as to whether we too have succumbed to cult thinking. Even the way we defend current material that came out of long-standing traditions of the past can also be an indicator. I can talk to Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists for hours and recognize almost immediately which ones are in a "cult" and which ones aren't by the manner in which they defend Ellen G White or Joseph Smith when glaring problems are pointed out.
(Job 31:26-28) 26 If I saw the sun shining Or the moon moving in its splendor; 27 And my heart was secretly enticed, And my mouth kissed my hand in worship of them; 28 Then that would be an error deserving punishment by the judges, For I would have denied the true God above.

I appear to be behind the times here.
Mike & Kim I know of from a video I watched of them on YouTube, where they seemed a bit too silly and flippant (perhaps even tipsy?). But their information was lousy, and they were promoting this idea that elders were destroying necessary CSA evidence, when they were really misinterpreting "good practice" counsel from the WTS about record-keeping.  Maybe they have done their homework on other videos, but I won't waste my time because I don't trust them based on the random one I watched. P. Asare I have never heard of. John Redwood is related to John Cedars, who is somehow related to Lloyd Evans, as I saw these names on JW Survey. I downloaded that site to read later, but I did read all the headlines from the site, just never got back to it. Average Joe I have never heard of. Bill Bowen is the former elder who put his face behind "Silent Lambs" which intended to expose CSA crimes among JWs. I understand that Barbara Anderson worked with him to get it started and get it named but that Barbara Anderson didn't trust his motives or his personality and backed away from it. (I have read much of Anderson's site, and the name comes up often when I search Google on several different historical and CSA topics.) WiFiBandit sounds very familiar but I do not know from where. (I suspect this is a Jehovahs-Witness forum participant. I don't care much about the work of most ex-JWs for purposes of testing their claims, or defense against their claims, unless I'm convinced that they have done their homework, and are not prone to taking things out of context. For this reason, I have purchased 2 books from M.J.Penton, 1 from C.O.Jonnson, and 2 from E.C.Gruss. (I also have two books from R.Franz that I picked up online as free pdfs. I also picked up a book called Apostles of Denial from archive.org, which is also from E.C.Gruss.)
Otherwise, I pretty much ignore current online sources because I think they tend to get their info from other sources anyway, and misinterpret or misrepresent what they said. For this reason I won't bother with those who don't do their own work, when it comes to claims we should test for ourselves.
Compared to people who appear to have gone to original sources and documented their work, I'd guess that most of these online personalities are probably just repeating things. Any of them, including the authors I mentioned, might also have had bad motives. We should expect that this taints their own conclusions. But it's worth looking at their work, especially if a lot of it is true, regardless of their own motives or conclusions. Perhaps we'll look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

I agree. The thing is, many would rather not know. At least that's how it appears to me. On the other hand, I wonder what actual good does it do to know? I mean of what practical benefit? (looking at it from the point of view of those who do not want to know, or would rather not know). The only thing I can think of is it equips you better to defend your faith and as you say prepare you for any possible question that might come up based on these issues. This is perhaps the only reason that I started reading these things, so if my son read something, and had questions, I would already know what he was talking about.

Since I am a self-proclaimed Barbarian, Billy, I can only assume you are trying to flatter me for some romantic reason.  It will NOT work!

In many halls the very library itself can no longer be found. So there are no older books, just a shelf for current (but used) Bibles and Songbooks that folks left accidentally. But it's true that the out of print books are not banned. Just harder to find, such as Aid to Bible Understanding and Commentary on the Letter of James. But if it were not well known which writer wrote a specific book, and it usually isn't, then there was no need to remove those books. The need to replace the Aid book with Insight began in a hurry after R.Franz became known as the head writer, through his own admission in Crisis of Conscience, but most the entries are still exactly verbatim what was in the Aid book. But they still haven't replaced "Choosing the Best Way of Life" and it's still available on the Watchtower Library CD, and wol.jw.org.
There are books that make us cringe, and those who ask specific questions about anything prior to 1970 will probably be looked at as if they are losing faith in the organization. Don't try to ask if anyone knows of anything still good in the Finished Mystery book, for example.
There is still a lot of good information in some of the books and magazines prior to 1970, but most anything useful has been repeated, or updated/corrected in more recent books and magazines. Also, I have some memos I was going to share here once that showed that in assigning topics, the head of Writing had a kind of rule that every topic would be revisited before 20 years were up. So if a topic hadn't been touched in a while, you might at least see it updated, for example, in 1939, 1958, 1977 (and 1996, 2015 if they still kept the "policy" going).
A couple of big changes that make a lot of books up to even 2000 obsolete is the fact that we no longer make a prophecy out of parables and narrative portions of the Bible. This doesn't make the good counsel obsolete, but usually it means that this counsel now applies to everybody, not just a specific class. (i.e., Shulammite class, Haman class, Esther class, Elijah class, Elisha class, Ruth class, Naomi class, Jehu class, Jezebel class, Jeremiah class, Jonadab class, Samaritan class, Prodigal Son's Brother's class, etc.)

At first I thought it was N.B., but I agree that this seems to be part of a much larger collection of anti-JW material. But you are right, it appears to be all JW material that is used in the 01.Read First; 02.Generation; and 03.LightBrighter files. I haven't seen the other files yet. The arguments may take things to an excessive conclusion, based on added marginal notes, but all this is still a REAL part of the history of the organization that should be understood correctly. We do take pride in the history of our organization, and an honest person would never leave out this information, even if our explanation for it is more generous than we might expect from ex-JWs.
For some, ignorance is bliss, or at least preferable to knowing these things. But a fully honest Witness will want to know what really happened and what others might think of these issues, and prepare for any possible question that might come up based on these issues. (1 Pet 3:15)
Some of these references are fairly recent, so it must be someone who was an active ex-JW recently. Perhaps N.B. knows, or it could be discovered through a search of the large JW discussion group. I make it a point not to visit there because there is too much real hatred of JWs, elders, GB. There is some of that here, but manageable in the sense that you can keep track of the few names who offer very little more than just repetitious hatred of everything related to the organization. It's easier to pick and choose over here, and know what to expect from each participant.
I'm interested in who this was, however, if anyone else already knows or wishes to search it out. Otherwise, I'll try to figure it out. (As of tomorrow, I'm out for over a week, again.)

At first I thought it was N.B., but I agree that this seems to be part of a much larger collection of anti-JW material. But you are right, it appears to be all JW material that is used in the 01.Read First; 02.Generation; and 03.LightBrighter files. I haven't seen the other files yet. The arguments may take things to an excessive conclusion, based on added marginal notes, but all this is still a REAL part of the history of the organization that should be understood correctly. We do take pride in the history of our organization, and an honest person would never leave out this information, even if our explanation for it is more generous than we might expect from ex-JWs.
For some, ignorance is bliss, or at least preferable to knowing these things. But a fully honest Witness will want to know what really happened and what others might think of these issues, and prepare for any possible question that might come up based on these issues. (1 Pet 3:15)
Some of these references are fairly recent, so it must be someone who was an active ex-JW recently. Perhaps N.B. knows, or it could be discovered through a search of the large JW discussion group. I make it a point not to visit there because there is too much real hatred of JWs, elders, GB. There is some of that here, but manageable in the sense that you can keep track of the few names who offer very little more than just repetitious hatred of everything related to the organization. It's easier to pick and choose over here, and know what to expect from each participant.
I'm interested in who this was, however, if anyone else already knows or wishes to search it out. Otherwise, I'll try to figure it out. (As of tomorrow, I'm out for over a week, again.)

In many halls the very library itself can no longer be found. So there are no older books, just a shelf for current (but used) Bibles and Songbooks that folks left accidentally. But it's true that the out of print books are not banned. Just harder to find, such as Aid to Bible Understanding and Commentary on the Letter of James. But if it were not well known which writer wrote a specific book, and it usually isn't, then there was no need to remove those books. The need to replace the Aid book with Insight began in a hurry after R.Franz became known as the head writer, through his own admission in Crisis of Conscience, but most the entries are still exactly verbatim what was in the Aid book. But they still haven't replaced "Choosing the Best Way of Life" and it's still available on the Watchtower Library CD, and wol.jw.org.
There are books that make us cringe, and those who ask specific questions about anything prior to 1970 will probably be looked at as if they are losing faith in the organization. Don't try to ask if anyone knows of anything still good in the Finished Mystery book, for example.
There is still a lot of good information in some of the books and magazines prior to 1970, but most anything useful has been repeated, or updated/corrected in more recent books and magazines. Also, I have some memos I was going to share here once that showed that in assigning topics, the head of Writing had a kind of rule that every topic would be revisited before 20 years were up. So if a topic hadn't been touched in a while, you might at least see it updated, for example, in 1939, 1958, 1977 (and 1996, 2015 if they still kept the "policy" going).
A couple of big changes that make a lot of books up to even 2000 obsolete is the fact that we no longer make a prophecy out of parables and narrative portions of the Bible. This doesn't make the good counsel obsolete, but usually it means that this counsel now applies to everybody, not just a specific class. (i.e., Shulammite class, Haman class, Esther class, Elijah class, Elisha class, Ruth class, Naomi class, Jehu class, Jezebel class, Jeremiah class, Jonadab class, Samaritan class, Prodigal Son's Brother's class, etc.)

You make it appear that you have rather disgusting set of worldly values. I don't know if that was intentional though.
This also gives the appearance that you filter your thoughts through set of disgusting worldly values. Although the scribd link is down, you can find this article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15261004
Here is the quoted abstract:
The review examines whether unsolicited or non-consensual sexual stimulation of either females or males can lead to unwanted sexual arousal or even to orgasm. The conclusion is that such scenarios can occur and that the induction of arousal and orgasm does not indicate that the subjects consented to the stimulation. A perpetrator's defence simply built upon the fact that evidence of genital arousal or orgasm proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded. I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your past "longing" to live in places like Sodom and Gomorrah.
 

In many halls the very library itself can no longer be found. So there are no older books, just a shelf for current (but used) Bibles and Songbooks that folks left accidentally. But it's true that the out of print books are not banned. Just harder to find, such as Aid to Bible Understanding and Commentary on the Letter of James. But if it were not well known which writer wrote a specific book, and it usually isn't, then there was no need to remove those books. The need to replace the Aid book with Insight began in a hurry after R.Franz became known as the head writer, through his own admission in Crisis of Conscience, but most the entries are still exactly verbatim what was in the Aid book. But they still haven't replaced "Choosing the Best Way of Life" and it's still available on the Watchtower Library CD, and wol.jw.org.
There are books that make us cringe, and those who ask specific questions about anything prior to 1970 will probably be looked at as if they are losing faith in the organization. Don't try to ask if anyone knows of anything still good in the Finished Mystery book, for example.
There is still a lot of good information in some of the books and magazines prior to 1970, but most anything useful has been repeated, or updated/corrected in more recent books and magazines. Also, I have some memos I was going to share here once that showed that in assigning topics, the head of Writing had a kind of rule that every topic would be revisited before 20 years were up. So if a topic hadn't been touched in a while, you might at least see it updated, for example, in 1939, 1958, 1977 (and 1996, 2015 if they still kept the "policy" going).
A couple of big changes that make a lot of books up to even 2000 obsolete is the fact that we no longer make a prophecy out of parables and narrative portions of the Bible. This doesn't make the good counsel obsolete, but usually it means that this counsel now applies to everybody, not just a specific class. (i.e., Shulammite class, Haman class, Esther class, Elijah class, Elisha class, Ruth class, Naomi class, Jehu class, Jezebel class, Jeremiah class, Jonadab class, Samaritan class, Prodigal Son's Brother's class, etc.)

I think the flattened note is easier to pick out in a song like the following, which is not a kingdom song. It's called "Sailor's Hornpipe" I think, and it was made famous in the Popeye cartoons in the 1960's. Here it comes up once in the intro, and once in the Popeye part. I slow it down just before the flattened note to make it easier to pick out.
 

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

Even you are going totally off your own topic, but you are funny. 
We have cats. They want food and that's all.  They must have joined me in the lack of love thing i have going on.   

Just because a simple "C" harmonica doesn't have sharps and flats doesn't mean you can't play songs outside the key of C. For one thing you can get harmonicas pre-tuned to every key. But even if you just use a "C" harmonica, you can also play any song in the songbook by just playing it in "C." For example, song number 6 (The Heavens Declare God's Glory) is in E-flat. But you don't even have to think about transposing in any technical sense. You just play C for every place that the song plays an E-flat, and the rest of the notes fall into place because ALL scales sound similar no matter what note they start on.
That's because every scale has a first note, then skips a whole step for the second note, another whole step for the third note, a half step more for the fourth note, and whole steps again for the fifth, sixth and seventh. And that seventh note ends up a half step behind the starting note again. That's always going to be true whether you are playing in G, F, A-flat, G-sharp, B-flat, etc. The only thing that changes is what note you started on.
But even when playing in another scale, there are often notes in a song that are not a part of that scale. These are sometimes called "accidentals." If you look at song #6 again, you'll see the "accidental" in the last row, just above the "pro-" of "pro-claims." Only the top note in that line is the melody (B-flat) and it has a little symbol next to it that means "natural." Normally every note on the B line in this key is going to be played as a B-flat, because that's just a standard part of playing in the key of E-flat, and you can look way over to the left  of this line and see 3 flat symbols. But on this particular note the "natural" means NOT to play it as a flat but play it as a "natural" B.
It turns out there is a way to do this on a simple harmonica. If you purse your lips and draw air in at a steady rate, but fairly strong, it will draw down the note a half step or so. If you do this a lot on the same harmonica, it gets easier. You can even draw down a note while blowing out, but that's a little harder to get it a full half-step down. 
I'll play a quick (sloppy) version of the song on a simple harmonica, and if you listen, you can hear where I paused just a bit to pulled the air a little bit stronger to draw down the note a bit and then let it slip back up to get the next note.
 
 

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

Represents an awful lot of work. Thanks.

I absolutely LOVE staggering irony, Billy, and you never fail to deliver!

Yes that was just one part of it. There's an entire drive of information. Here you go: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwbiWY5ulihhbUtHMExCMElWRjA?usp=sharing

I woke up this morning and was pleased to see a red 17 on the notifications bell at the top of this page. I thought that perhaps someone had made some thoughtful posts to read.
Alas and alack! All 17 were just down-votes from @Foreigner (Allen Smith's [BTK's] long-running spamming account).